§ Sir Hector MonroTo ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what responses have been received on his Department's consultative proposals for tighter controls over the most dangerous substances entering water; and if he will make a statement.
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonScottish Office proposals were set out in a consultation paper issued on 19 December 1988. Responses were received from 20 organisations representing industrial, environmental, agricultural, water and local authority interests. A summary has been placed in the Library.
The respondents generally gave a strong welcome to the Government's proposals for the principle of a unified approach involving the use of both environmental quality standards and technology-based emission standards for controlling discharges of the most dangerous substances. Comments were invited and received on a number of matters of detail, and these have been taken into account in the conclusions reached.
A key element of the proposals which was welcomed by many respondents, was the drawing up of a priority Red List of dangerous substances. The provisional list included in the consultation paper has been slightly amended in the light of the consultations and of new and corrected data now received. The initial priority Red List will be:
Substance CAS number Mercury and its compounds Cadmium and its compounds gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane 00058–89–9 DDT 00050–29–3 Pentachlorophenol 00087–86–5 Hexachlorobenzene 00118–74–1 Hexachlorobutadiene 00087–68–3 Aldrin 00309–00–2 Dieldrin 00060–57–1 Endrin 00072–20–8 Polychlorinated Biphenyls 01336–36–3 Dichlorvos 00062–73–7 1,2-Dichloroethane 00107–06–2 Trichlorobenzene 12002–48–1 Atrazine 01912–24— Simazine 00122–34–9 Tributyltin compounds Triphenyltin compounds Trifluoralin 01582–09–8 Fenitrothion 00122–14–5 Azinphos-methyl 00086–50–0 Malathion 00121–75–5 Endosulfan 00115–29–7 This list is the same as that announced by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the 895W Environment in the House on 10 April, (Official Report, volume 150, column 405). In making his decision, my hon. Friend took account of the comments and suggestions expressed in the Scottish consultation exercise.
Further substances may be added to the list from time to time where there are sound scientific reasons for doing so. These will be identified along the broad lines set out in the annex to the consultation paper. The selection scheme is being further developed and modified in the light of comments received. Candidate substances identified by the scheme will be subject to a second-stage assessment, taking particular account of the risk posed for the aquatic environment, and to consultation before addition to the list.
Those respondents to the consultative paper who commented on the mechanism of control all favoured the principle that discharges from prescribed processes should be subject to control by the Scottish river purification authorities rather than controlled centrally. Strict environmental quality standards should be set for all Red List substances where they do not exist at present. River purification authorities' discharge consents will ensure that these standards are met as a minimum requirement. Enabling powers for this purpose are available in schedule 23 to the Water Act 1989, which substitutes new and amended provisions in part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.
Such discharges would be subject to a requirement, to be introduced progressively for existing plant, that the process should be operated according to the best available technology not entailing excessive costs with a view to minimising discharges of the most dangerous substances.
We shall be issuing shortly a further consultation paper which considers how the work of the river purification authorities in dealing with Red List substances should be co-ordinated with that of other pollution control agencies.
The 1988 consultation paper discussed the question of inputs of Red List substances to water through indirect or diffuse sources. Several respondents agreed with the paper that diffuse sources are an important input for many dangerous substances. After considering the comments received, we still believe that existing controls over the supply, use and disposal of substances should generally be sufficient to deal with any potential problem from diffuse sources, but we shall be asking river purification authorities to put in hand more rigorous monitoring for priority substances and we are considering the need for new powers relating to the storage and more general use of certain hazardous substances.
Measures are also required for controls over discharges to sewers where these discharges contain Red List substances. We shall be making proposals for how this should be done in the consultation paper referred to earlier.